On Dec 19, 2007, at 6:51 PM, neu242 wrote: > > andyg;250167 Wrote: >> Is it slow at all levels of BMF or just the top level? How many >> items >> are in your music folder? Are they on a local or network drive? How >> fast is your machine? Is your items per page pref set higher than >> the >> default of 50? >> >> The main reason it's slower is because it makes a lot more database >> queries (one per folder item). This is done for bug 1360 to ignore >> files referenced in cue sheets, as well as to look for artwork. The >> player interface does neither of these things. >> >> However, on my system, it still takes less than half a second to >> display a listing of 50 items (when the mtime has not changed and it >> doesn't have to read the filesystem). In that case it takes about 1 >> second, and I'm using a network drive, too. > > Hi. > > As I've stated earlier: This is a 500mhz disk server with 256MB ram, > with my music collection on a local USB2 drive, and 250 items are > displayed on each page. > > The display time seems proportional to the number of displayed items. > The last page (with only 40 items) displays considerably faster (1-2 > seconds). Since the top level is the only one with loads of items, it > is the only one that suffers enough to be annoying. > > By the way, one query per item seems like a serious waste. Couldn't > this have been done with a smarter query? I haven't got any cue > sheets, maybe I could disable the extra queries altogether somehow?
Probably could be improved, but that's how it was implemented, and performance doesn't really suffer in the default case (a minimum-spec machine and 50 items per page). In any case, you can do the following to speed up your browse performance: Reduce items per page to a more reasonable level. Use a database-based browse option (artists, albums, new music, etc) Get a faster server. _______________________________________________ beta mailing list beta@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/beta
